Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

European and External Relations Committee 03 March 2016

03 Mar 2016 · S4 · European and External Relations Committee

Item of business

Human Rights

Neil, Alex SNP Airdrie and Shotts Watch on SPTV

Thank you very much. I congratulate the committee on taking on the inquiry, which is extremely important and timeous, although it would obviously have been helpful at this stage if we knew what the UK Government was going to propose. The Scottish Government’s focus is firmly on the positive action that can be taken in Scotland to give further and better effect to human rights for the benefit of individuals and communities across the whole of Scotland and throughout Scottish society. That means the full range of human rights, as set out in the seven core United Nations treaties and a further eight instruments in the Council of Europe treaty system. It also means the rights in the European charter of fundamental rights, which are reflected in EU law. It is essential to be clear in the current debate that the idea of human rights encompasses much more than just the rights that are identified in the European convention on human rights, fundamentally important as those rights and the ECHR are. The Scottish Government is very clear that the poverty of ambition and regressive thinking that are evident in the debate that the UK Government has promoted should not be allowed to impose constraints or limitations on what we seek to achieve in Scotland. The UK Government’s anti-human rights agenda and proposals for a British bill of rights are an unwelcome and damaging distraction. I am struck by the fact that evidence that has been submitted to the committee and articulated by expert witnesses in the February round-table discussion reflects a widely drawn consensus. It is self-evident from the views that the committee has gathered that the UK Government’s claim to be responding to popular demand in its attempts to scale back human rights in the UK is simply not supported by the facts. In my November written submission, I argued that attempts to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British bill of rights would do damage at both the domestic and international levels. Other submissions from organisations ranging from Amnesty International to the Church of Scotland have made similar points. Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have pointed out the positive impact of the ECHR and the HRA. That beneficial effect, which has facilitated challenge and self-examination and prompted important practical changes to laws and procedures, is something that the First Minister also talked about in the human rights speeches that she gave in September and December. We have seen evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland that unequivocally supports the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UK adherence to the European convention on human rights. A range of expert witnesses have provided persuasive testimonies relating to both the positive benefits of current mechanisms and the significant problems and undesirable consequences that are likely to result from the UK Government’s proposals. There is no coherent or convincing case for a British bill of rights. In fact, there is very clear support, both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, for the retention of the Human Rights Act 1998, and for doing more to give meaningful effect to the commitments that the UK has given in signing and ratifying international human rights treaties. As I stated in my written evidence, the Scottish Government believes that it is in the best interests of Scotland—and of the UK as a whole—for the Human Rights Act 1998 to be retained and for the UK to remain fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That is a point that I have reiterated in a recent letter to the UK's Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. Recent media reports suggest that the promised consultation paper has been delayed yet again, this time until after the EU referendum. It may be too much to hope that this further postponement is the precursor to UK ministers taking an eminently sensible and pragmatic decision to drop entirely the policy on this matter. That is a decision that we would certainly welcome. We might then expend our collective time and energy to rather more positive effect—as was pointed out by the report from the Jimmy Reid Foundation—by working to give effect to the full spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights that belong to everyone in our society, rather than having to defend against the UK Government’s attacks on the fundamental rights that are the necessary foundation stones of any civilised, modern democracy.

Search Hansard contributions

European and External Relations Committee 03 March 2016

In the same item of business